Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
state_n church_n member_n visible_a 2,963 5 9.4470 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A57057 The case of the cross in baptism considered wherein is shewed that there is nothing in it as it is used in the Church of England that can be any just reason of separation from it. Resbury, Nathanael, 1643-1711. 1684 (1684) Wing R1126; ESTC R24493 26,069 40

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Church whereby the Person being thrice dipt or put under water at the mention of each Person of the Trinity was suppos'd to be Baptiz'd in the belief of that great Article Advers Praxeam Again in lib de Coron milit So Tertullian expresseth it Nam nec semel sed ter ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur We are dipped not once but three times at each name and so are Baptiz'd into the three Persons And besides this Signification of the three Persons by this threefold immersion which Tertullian and not only he but St. Ambrose have mention'd there are others of the Fathers that have suppos'd the Death the Burial and the Resurrection of our Saviour together with his being in the Grave three days was signifi'd by this custom And yet was this so far from being accounted any Sacrament of it self or a Sacrament within that of Baptism that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immersion aside for the generality and the threefold Immersion much sooner particularly in Spain and that upon a reason that made the single dipping as significant as the Trine had been when it was in use viz to distinguish themselves from the Arrians who had taken occasion from this threefold dipping in Baptism to assert the three distinct substances pretending a Testimony from the Catholick Church by this usage Much such a reason by the way the Reform'd Churches in Poland govern'd themselves by when in a general Synod they decreed against the Posture of sitting at the Lords Supper because that Custom had been brought in first by the Arrians who as they irreverently treat Christ Synod Petricov An. 1578. so also his sacred appointments Which leads to a view of the Church in all its later Reformations 2. Is it not very evident that in none of our later Reformations nay even in those of our Dissenting Brethren themselves but they do in their most Religious Solemnities some things that are very Symbolical Actions that have great significations in them 1. There giving to every Baptiz'd Infant a new Name which both they and we do call the Christian Name this seems to betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a church-Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi'd c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the